Are you allowed to use deadly force in defense of (mere) property?

⮜ Answered Questions

Quick answer:

1. If you are defending your own life, or the lives of innocent others, deadly force is justified.
2. If you are defending mere personal property (not lives), deadly force is not justified.

Biblical law is clear that the use of deadly force is lawful in the defense of oneself or (innocent) others. I will address personal defense in a separate question. Nothing below should be taken as preventing the use of deadly force in defense of a person's life.

But what about the defense of mere property? If someone is damaging or stealing property in a way that isn't a clear threat to someone's life, can deadly force be used? This question has come up recently with the widespread rioting in the United States and elsewhere, and there is a Biblical answer: No.

Let's look at the main scripture passage which establishes this:

2 If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him. 3 If the sun has risen on him, he is guilty of bloodshed. He shall make restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3WEB

As in many of the Biblical case laws, there is more than one case entangled in the text:

1. The case of a thief breaking into a house at night, and killed by the homeowner, with no bloodguilt attributed to the homeowner.
2. The case of a thief breaking into a house during the day, and killed by the homeowner, with bloodguilt attributed to the homeowner.

If we understand the cases this way, it shows that lethal force is not allowed for mere property crime. On the other hand, lethal force is allowable when there is a question about whether the intruder poses a threat of bodily harm (i.e. at night). The homeowner is given the benefit of the legal doubt when the crime happens at night, but not if the sun is risen (the intruder can be clearly seen as a mere thief/burglar, and not a robber). This understanding make the best sense of the text. It is taken this way by R. Alan Cole, in his commentary on Exodus (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series):

To kill a thief digging through the mud-brick wall (Ezek. 12:5) is justifiable homicide, if done after dark. He may be an armed murderer, for all the householder knows. His death may even have been accidental, in the blundering fight in the darkness. But in the daylight, the householder has no excuse for killing: besides, he can identify the man. It is typical of Israel’s merciful law that even a thief has his rights.

It is also taken this way by Joe Sprinkle in The Book of the Covenant:

Whereas in some circumstances, as when a thief is breaking in at night, one might not be held accountable for taking the life of the thief (Exod. 22.1), this is not a matter of punishment but rather of self-defense. In contrast with Mesopotamian laws, the Bible says killing a thief brings blood-guilt on the slayer just as it would if he killed a non-thief (Exod. 22.2a). In other words, God does not sanction capital punishment for theft of property, and here offers legal protection for the thief. (p. 132)

Also Brevard Childs (The Book of Exodus):

The law seeks to guard the lives of both parties involved. The householder is exonerated if he kills the intruder at night in the defense of his home. Conversely, the life of the thief is also protected by the law. If he is killed in plain daylight, then the slayer is held responsible for the homicide and is vulnerable to blood vengeance (Num. 35.27; Deut. 19.10). (p. 474)

Also Douglas Stuart (Exodus [New American Commentary]):

[D]efending one’s property at night, when the ability to see is limited, means that one cannot be as subtle in the application of force as might be possible during the daytime, especially because of the difficulty of seeing whether or not an intruder has a weapon…. Thus, the present law allowed the use of deadly force against intruding thieves from sundown to sunup, but not during the daylight. The property owner could still defend against theft in the daytime but could not use lethal force in the process. (p. 503)

I want to examine an alternative interpretation of this verse offered recently by James White on his show The Dividing Line:

So, you strike the guy and he’s dead. That’s it. But, [quoting Exod. 22:3] “if the sun has risen on him” so, in other words, if he survives – he’s knocked out cold -- but “the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account.” Now my assumption is that ...what people were saying is that … “well, no, if you can see him because it’s light out, then you can’t strike at him. In the dark it was one thing…” No, that’s not the point, because what does the rest of the verse say? “There will be bloodguiltiness on his account”... in other words, he committed a sin that has brought bloodguiltiness: he is a thief. “He shall surely make restitution. If he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” Who’s the “his”? Who’s the “he”? It’s not the homeowner. It’s the thief. Because it says “he shall be sold for his theft.” So, there’s nothing here about the homeowner in trouble, at all, for doing anything. The point is, that if he lives, then there’s going to have to be dealing with his bloodguiltiness, he’s going to have to make restitution.

On Dr. White's interpretation, the Exod. 22 passage would allow a homeowner to kill a mere thief -- technically "burglar", since he was breaking in -- whether it was night or day. Thus, Dr. White opposes the common interpretation I established above by what seem to be two important differences:

1. He takes the second case (in verse 3) as referring to a thief who is not killed, but merely "knocked out", waking up after "the sun has risen".
2. He claims that the injured thief (not the homeowner) is the one to whom bloodguilt must be attributed in verse 3.

There are two major problems with Dr. White's interpretation:

1. The first mention of "bloodguiltiness" (verse 2) seems to refer to the lack of the homeowner's bloodguiltiness. To refer to a lack of bloodguiltiness on the part of a dead thief would make no sense from a case law perspective (because it would form no part of a judge's decision-making). However, the postive attribution of bloodguiltiness in verse 3, on Dr. White's account, refers to the thief, not the homeowner. In other "entangled" case laws like this (Exod. 21:18-19, Exod. 21:20-21, Exod. 21:28-29, Deut. 22:23-26), the parallel cases establish important principles which distinguish the guilt or innocence of a particular person. In the case of a thief/burglar, there is no question that he is guilty, by definition: he is labeled literally as a "thief." There is no distinction in the cases which would call this into question. However, on the more common understanding, the case distinction is clear: the homeowner has bloodguilt if he kills during the day, but not if he kills at night.
2. "Bloodguilt," in Biblical law, is nowhere imputed for mere property crimes (crimes which never call for a death penalty). The Hebrew word used for property crime "guilt" is, rather, asham (אָשַׁם): Lev. 6:4, Num. 5:6. On the other hand, bloodguilt is imputed for death penalty crimes such negligent homicide or murder: Deut. 22:8; Judg. 9:24.